<quoted text>I saw a chart about the RCC and their own evolution... it was somewhere in that timeline where they were more open to evolution.Believers believe in evolution because that is what they were taught in school... they had no choice. I can get in the whole spill about how it started to get taught in the classrooms but that is for another day unless someone would like to do due diligence on their own and look for it for themselves which would be plus. Nevertheless, Evolution wasn't always taught in schools but when it did arrive on the scene it didn't come without racism (survival of the fittest)... and I understand Darwin used animals to make this point but the powers that believe politically-corrected it for their own prejudices. Not just the fittest of whites against blacks but even whites against whites in Europe. Scientific racism actually...Evolution and Eugenics are intertwined... Survival of the fittest.

<quoted text>Yeah, it wasn't hard to find them and there were a whole litter to choose from... but I kind I felt like it would be fruitless to send as someone would have to at least care about the facts.

They aren't facts. They are fraudulent attempts by creationists to fool people like you. First, the lists hold mostly people who have no background and are not working in biological science. Second, any random list of biological scientists who are not evolution (science) deniers is larger - the Steve list is larger.

<quoted text>I guess the simple response to that would be... "that's not true". I'm not bold enough to say that none have been discredited... but then again, I'm not that bold enough to imply that "they've all been discredited." You see, in materialists, naturalists, evolutionary scientists (whatever you want to call them)... they also discredit each other... one may come up with an idea that may be close to discovery but then someone comes along and says something entirely different but on the same trajectory. So a scientist, whether evolutionary or creationary being discredited is simply normal business throughout the decades. Also, what may interest you is I've seen that sometimes a scientist would be discredited only later to find out that he/she had been right all along.

Evolution has never been disproved, not once.

Scientists do not discredit each other, they disagree with each other about the details of evolution. I'm sorry that you have been duped by the fraudulent creationist misrepresentations of science. The scientists so misquoted and misrepresented themselves often clarify the creationist falsehoods.

More importantly, why are you basing your knowledge on other people's ignorance? The whole "scientists discredit each other" myth that creationists push rests on your ignorance and your inability to seek real answers.

You automatically think "ha! If they don't know, then I am right!" That's trash. You cannot base your knowledge on someone else's ignorance. If you do so, you don't have knowledge, you have empty, untested belief.

But we both know that you don't actually know that much about science. Your arguments so far have been based in ignorance and personal incredulity. Don't write to me "you people don't know, so I am right" or "you people argue about science, so I am right (even though I don't understand the arguments)."

Write to me "creationism declares X and X is what we observe in nature. In fact, we use X to predict Y and produce treatment Z. That's how powerful X is." What creationist observations do we have? None. What creationist predictions do we have about nature? None. What creationist technology or solutions do we have about nature? None.

The thing is, you creationists scream and rant all you like, but you never produce new knowledge or technology. You are incapable of solving real world problems like malaria or tuberculosis - let's not forget the creationist "disease as sin" model. You are incapable of explaining why pathogens exist, how to treat them, how to eradicate them, why they affect us as they do.

Or something like sperm competition. Why do most types of human sperm not fertilize, but instead act to destroy other sperm or to block other sperm?

Evolution answers these questions with ease. It produces all kinds of medical technology and medical knowledge.

Creationism doesn't. It's a religious belief - a fiction, an imagined reality that for you is real because you are utterly ignorant with regards to biology and biological science. And your masters want - need - you ignorant, because they like your money.

why would anyone believe that creation itself is only around 6000 years old is beyond me.

They think it because they believe that their bible tells them so. Nothing else is necessary. They also believe that a snake talked, and that the sky could hold enough rain to cover the tallest peaks, deposit it in only forty days, then have it evaporate and disappear from earth. Reason isn't part of the formula. Faith is.

Qu_innocence wrote:

The "days" in Genesis is a word that would describe "era's" or "eons".

Do eras and eons have a morning and an evening? The days of creation do. What's the problem with 24 hour days? The contradictory evidence?

<quoted text>They aren't facts. They are fraudulent attempts by creationists to fool people like you. First, the lists hold mostly people who have no background and are not working in biological science. Second, any random list of biological scientists who are not evolution (science) deniers is larger - the Steve list is larger.<quoted text>Evolution has never been disproved, not once.Scientists do not discredit each other, they disagree with each other about the details of evolution. I'm sorry that you have been duped by the fraudulent creationist misrepresentations of science. The scientists so misquoted and misrepresented themselves often clarify the creationist falsehoods.More importantly, why are you basing your knowledge on other people's ignorance? The whole "scientists discredit each other" myth that creationists push rests on your ignorance and your inability to seek real answers.You automatically think "ha! If they don't know, then I am right!" That's trash. You cannot base your knowledge on someone else's ignorance. If you do so, you don't have knowledge, you have empty, untested belief.But we both know that you don't actually know that much about science. Your arguments so far have been based in ignorance and personal incredulity. Don't write to me "you people don't know, so I am right" or "you people argue about science, so I am right (even though I don't understand the arguments)."Write to me "creationism declares X and X is what we observe in nature. In fact, we use X to predict Y and produce treatment Z. That's how powerful X is." What creationist observations do we have? None. What creationist predictions do we have about nature? None. What creationist technology or solutions do we have about nature? None.The thing is, you creationists scream and rant all you like, but you never produce new knowledge or technology. You are incapable of solving real world problems like malaria or tuberculosis - let's not forget the creationist "disease as sin" model. You are incapable of explaining why pathogens exist, how to treat them, how to eradicate them, why they affect us as they do.Or something like sperm competition. Why do most types of human sperm not fertilize, but instead act to destroy other sperm or to block other sperm?Evolution answers these questions with ease. It produces all kinds of medical technology and medical knowledge.Creationism doesn't. It's a religious belief - a fiction, an imagined reality that for you is real because you are utterly ignorant with regards to biology and biological science. And your masters want - need - you ignorant, because they like your money.

<quoted text>Amen... Britain currently has the most accurate from what I understand... but what is even more accurate than those are the revolution of the planets in our Solar System. It was perfectly, methodically engineered by an Intelligence...

So then while the intelligent design people say that complexity is a sign of intelligence, you say that mechanical simplicity is.

It sounds like you might be seeing god in everything the way somebody wearing blue shades sees blue in everything.

And you're not alone. Millions or billions of people see the same thing you do. But millions or billions of us just scratch our heads and wonder why you see a god in what we see as godless. How can we decide who is seeing reality and who isn't? Is it important to do so?

<quoted text>No, I actually believe the earth is possibly billions and billions of years old... there are young-earth theorists and old-earth theoristist... both groups are Creationists but differ it not only the age of the earth but of creation itself. I mean, it can take millions to billions of years of starlight to get to us so why would anyone believe that creation itself is only around 6000 years old is beyond me. The "days" in Genesis is a word that would describe "era's" or "eons". Now I used to believe in young-earth creationism... that is before I asked any questions.<quoted text>No.. HFY.. actually you are partly correct. I was christened in the RCC, was born of Catholic parents... but I've left the RCC for around 24 years now. Now, I remember when G_O_D and I were going back and forth on Darwin... but as I was sending out certain studies... I had come to learn that evolution... at least the concept did not "originally" start with Darwin or his father or his grandfather... but it is a very old concept way before the Darwins were a twinkle in ol' Pappy's eye... it just that, that old concept wasn't called evolution. Makes me want to go and find it again.

Uhm...you may have to disregard my previous post :)

Ok, so you are not using the standard definition of creationism and instead using a "long earth" version - a sort of hands off version. Your premise is that God Created the universe, with a Plan, and we are the result.

Yes, lots of scientists believe the very same. Although I daresay they don't reflect very deeply on their beliefs, nor question them as vigorously as they do their science.

First, believing that your deity created the universe is not scientifically supportable. It's an inference. Atheism is also an inference. However, I argue that atheism - or, at least - non-belief in any human-imagined deity - has the backing of the social sciences, if not the hard sciences.

But I only have evidence on my side, not testable, disprovable hypotheses, so I'll concede that atheism, like theism, is an inference.

Second, there are 2 problems with the Christian belief that their God Created the universe.

1. Why your deity and not any other from any other religion? Neither you nor any believer has empirical evidence that supports personal belief in your deities. Of course you all have personal experiences that prove your religion to you - but these are encultured experiences; your brain is the product of your culture and religion and so you have culture and religious specific experiences.

2. The world around us is not as your mythological texts describe. Further, the deity described in those texts does not fit the deity believed and worshiped by people. Take disease, for example. Unless you are going to concede that God does not share human morality, you're going to have a tough time explaining the high mortality rates of impoverished children to disease. And, once you concede that God could not share human morality, if He existed, then you've lost Omnibenevolence. And we can continue from here.

To sum: while scientists may also be believers, and therefore believe the universe was Created, they are doing so by not overly scrutinizing their beliefs. Nor are they suggesting that humans were specially created by your deity, that we didn't evolve.

@ HFY... now, it is crazy distance from the earth to the moon (not looking it up but it's many, many thousands of miles)... and 93 million miles away from the sun (I do remember that from elemetary).Now concerning our own Solar System, if we could figure it out in miles... could you imagine what the square miles of our own solar system would be? It would be insurmountable. And as you know there are billions upon billions of systems and constellations out there.So on this little planet of ours within our solar system... it is literally "teeming" with all sorts of life, so much so that it is mind-blowing. Whether animate or inanimate... and all sorts of life and species still yet to be discovered on our own little planet. So you mean to tell me that out of the whole, vast solar system of ours we just happen to be the only one that is "naturally selected" out-of-the-blue to be teeming with life? No dear... I don't think so. It was planned, it was designed and it was intentional.

1. Yes, the solar system is big.

2. No, it's not teeming with life. The earth is, that's true.

3. You don't know that other solar systems don't have life.

4. Just because the solar system and universe are large, and that ours houses life, does not prove that they were intelligently designed.

5. In fact, it demonstrates the opposite. Why don't other planets in our solar system have life? How could a designer be so poor at designing?

Encouraging Words....The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and produces wonderful results.James 5:16K-Love

With all due respect, what do these words encourage apart from prayer? To an unbeliever, they're not encouraging words. To a believer, they are an affirmation that he or she can make difference by praying.

Does it matter to you whether the words are true or not? What if the claim could be tested? Would you want to know the results, even if they contradicted the claim? If you love truth, I think that your answer has to be "yes." Do you disagree?

<quoted text>I watched it on Netflix.I'd love to hear your and hiding's thoughts on it.Looking up the title now. For some reason, it sometimes takes a while to connect. I think I need a better wireless router.Aha. That took a while.It's The Human Family Tree.You can watch it here, too:http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/human-family-t...

<quoted text>I saw a chart about the RCC and their own evolution... it was somewhere in that timeline where they were more open to evolution.Believers believe in evolution because that is what they were taught in school... they had no choice. I can get in the whole spill about how it started to get taught in the classrooms but that is for another day unless someone would like to do due diligence on their own and look for it for themselves which would be plus. Nevertheless, Evolution wasn't always taught in schools but when it did arrive on the scene it didn't come without racism (survival of the fittest)... and I understand Darwin used animals to make this point but the powers that believe politically-corrected it for their own prejudices. Not just the fittest of whites against blacks but even whites against whites in Europe. Scientific racism actually...Evolution and Eugenics are intertwined... Survival of the fittest.

Only someone who doesn't understand evolution could write what you wrote. All of us evolutionary theorists have moved on beyond the early 20th century. That was, what, a hundred years ago?

Science isn't stagnant like dogma.

And...all evidence demonstrates evolution. Francis Crick, Christian, quoted on this thread by Serah, wrote that "if you don't accept evolution, you aren't educated." The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It has never been disproved, not once.

And you creationists have never, not once, put up a theoretical framework for your story. The very best you can do is rest your belief on your inability to understand science. You never rest your belief on evidence. Nor on application - creationism is incapable of producing new knowledge and technology.

So the very best you have is deception, misdirection and ignorance.

Well done.

When you come up with a theoretical framework or a medicine, let me know.

<quoted text>I guess I would have to make a distinction between Natural Eugenics and Gov't enforced Eugenics. However, both are evolutionary forces.

I'd have to disagree with you here - mostly over your use of language.

Calling natural selection eugenics is misusing the term eugenics. If we do that, then we fail to understand how human enforced breeding programs differ from death because of environmental forces.

Second, gov't enforced eugenics leads to evolutionary change in the short term in that gene frequencies in gene pools change. However, it cannot lead to long term evolution unless the society strictly carries out the eugenics schemes for a very long time - longer than any society has yet existed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.